1 Comments
Published by Jeff
on Thursday, May 03, 2007 at 9:28 AM. 
In my church this week, they launched a new series that they like to call "Star Wars". It is a discussion of evolution and creation - I guess a battle over who created the stars. This first week, the discussion was confined to "old Earth" vs. "new Earth".
Of course, the atheists believe it is an old earth that some how miraculously appeared from nothing (with a big bang, etc.) I don't have enough faith in that to give it much press here. That is for another post. For today, I am just thinking in terms of God.
The Old Earth theory dictates that the Book of Genesis can easily be interpreted in a way that allows for each of the "days" of Creation could be something other than 24-hour periods. Some of the terminology in Hebrew (the language of the Old Testament) provides for this possibility. Therefore, depending on the amount of time for each day, the Earth could be billions of years old which would satisfy the contemporary scientific age estimates of rocks, fossils and the expanding Universe.
On the other hand, the New Earth theory states that the Bible states it took six days to create the Earth. The new Earthers reason that if God said it, then by golly, it took six days to create (and one day to rest). God understood that we (in this case contemporary Americans) know that a day is a 24-hour period and that was the word He chose to use in this account. Therefore, why should we try to put words in God's mouth in order to pacify the pagan scientists anyway? After establishing that one can conclude that since the creation of man was at the end of the first week, one can figure out the age of the Earth by tracking each generation up to Jesus through out the genealogy that the Bible provides. It even gives the age of death of each ancestor (or most) of Christ. Add all that together and calculate the new era dates and you can figure out that the Earth is only 6000 to 8000 years old.
One attached theory to the OET, is that God created the Earth in six days, but made it appear to be mature and old (millions of years old) just as He did the first man (Adam) by creating him to "appear" to be about 16-18 years old - even though his actual age was one day old. I will let that theory just stand alone as an FYI for this entry.
At any rate, it would appear that the "Old Earth Theory" is the most reasonable of the two original theories presented here. First blushes are often deceiving, though. Since one supporting piece of evidence suggests that the plants and animals took care of multiplying themselves with God's direct action in Genesis 1:12 "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good (KJV)."
However, on further examination, all this happened on Day 3 - according to Genesis. But on Day 4, God created the sun and the moon. The problem is that the plants and grasses couldn't multiply on their own without the sun. So, it would be logical to assume that everything had to be in place before life could spontaneously replenish itself.
In addition, there is evidence that some things that appeared to happen over millions of years actually could have happened in a matter of days if certain dramatic events were present (i.e. a world wide flood, earthquakes, etc.) The Grand Canyon is one example.
I am not going to come to a conclusion here. I think both scenarios are possible. The Bible states that all things are possible with God. I guess the lesson is to not get married to any explanation. There is just too much still to examine and learn.
In my church this week, they launched a new series that they like to call "Star Wars". It is a discussion of evolution and creation - I guess a battle over who created the stars. This first week, the discussion was confined to "old Earth" vs. "new Earth".Of course, the atheists believe it is an old earth that some how miraculously appeared from nothing (with a big bang, etc.) I don't have enough faith in that to give it much press here. That is for another post. For today, I am just thinking in terms of God.
The Old Earth theory dictates that the Book of Genesis can easily be interpreted in a way that allows for each of the "days" of Creation could be something other than 24-hour periods. Some of the terminology in Hebrew (the language of the Old Testament) provides for this possibility. Therefore, depending on the amount of time for each day, the Earth could be billions of years old which would satisfy the contemporary scientific age estimates of rocks, fossils and the expanding Universe.
On the other hand, the New Earth theory states that the Bible states it took six days to create the Earth. The new Earthers reason that if God said it, then by golly, it took six days to create (and one day to rest). God understood that we (in this case contemporary Americans) know that a day is a 24-hour period and that was the word He chose to use in this account. Therefore, why should we try to put words in God's mouth in order to pacify the pagan scientists anyway? After establishing that one can conclude that since the creation of man was at the end of the first week, one can figure out the age of the Earth by tracking each generation up to Jesus through out the genealogy that the Bible provides. It even gives the age of death of each ancestor (or most) of Christ. Add all that together and calculate the new era dates and you can figure out that the Earth is only 6000 to 8000 years old.
One attached theory to the OET, is that God created the Earth in six days, but made it appear to be mature and old (millions of years old) just as He did the first man (Adam) by creating him to "appear" to be about 16-18 years old - even though his actual age was one day old. I will let that theory just stand alone as an FYI for this entry.
At any rate, it would appear that the "Old Earth Theory" is the most reasonable of the two original theories presented here. First blushes are often deceiving, though. Since one supporting piece of evidence suggests that the plants and animals took care of multiplying themselves with God's direct action in Genesis 1:12 "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good (KJV)."
However, on further examination, all this happened on Day 3 - according to Genesis. But on Day 4, God created the sun and the moon. The problem is that the plants and grasses couldn't multiply on their own without the sun. So, it would be logical to assume that everything had to be in place before life could spontaneously replenish itself.
In addition, there is evidence that some things that appeared to happen over millions of years actually could have happened in a matter of days if certain dramatic events were present (i.e. a world wide flood, earthquakes, etc.) The Grand Canyon is one example.
I am not going to come to a conclusion here. I think both scenarios are possible. The Bible states that all things are possible with God. I guess the lesson is to not get married to any explanation. There is just too much still to examine and learn.
Labels: apologetics, origins
Have you ever read "Christus Apollo" by Ray Bradbury? It's an amazing poem putting forward a very unique view of creation and Christ.